7 quotes

6 paraphrases

Gracelyn Swank

EN 101

Argument Essay

14 December 2020

21st Century Food Stamps

When someone says food stamps, what comes to mind? The first thing that tends to come

to mind is a physical paper stamp. Although this is partially true, there have been updates to the

system to suit the needs of society and better keep up with the world. In 1939 when the program

began, it offered paper food stamps in two colors, orange and blue. Orange stamps were able to

purchase any food while blue stamps could only purchase foods that had been approved by the

government. The program no longer uses those physical stamps. Instead, in 1990 they switched

to using Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards, similar to a debit card. Since the change 30

years ago, the program has continued to support families that need assistance with purchasing

groceries. As helpful of a resource as it is, the regulations need to be modified: the benefits are

easy to pass between users, there is no limit on what kinds of foods are available, and the

government is spending a large amount of money to keep the program alive.

Since the food stamps program began, it has been easy to abuse the system and “share”

benefits, but when the program switched to using EBT cards, “sharing” became more difficult.

With the cards, someone has to manage to obtain the four-digit PIN to have access to their

benefits. States have begun to be more observant with EBT card transactions to catch fraudulent

activities. According to the article “Food Assistance: Reducing the Trafficking of Food Stamps

Benefits” released by the United States General Accounting Office in 2016, “Of the 29 states
7 quotes
6 paraphrases

with statewide electronic benefit systems, only 4--Florida, Missouri, South Carolina, and

Texas--independently analyzed their electronic databases to identify suspect recipients” (2).

Since this information has been released, more states have admitted to looking over their EBT

databases as well. With the states looking over their data, they can further look into the

transactions and catch suspicious activity, leaving less room for the federal government to

overlook a fraudulent transaction and potentially miss a scam. “During 1998 and 1999, these four

states [Florida, Missouri, South Carolina, and Texas] were responsible for disqualifying about 99

percent of the 6,873 individuals nationwide who were removed from the Food Stamps Program

for trafficking” (“Food Assistance …” 2). This number represents around 6,804 of the total

number of users caught with fraudulent transactions. That means that the federal government was

responsible for 69 of the individuals caught. Without states reviewing transactions made with

EBT cards, close to 7,000 fraudulent cases would have been missed, resulting in more people

walking around instead of being in jail for fraudulent food stamp use.

Out of the millions of food stamp recipients in the United States, a percentage of them are

using their benefits dishonestly. Even though states are reviewing their EBT card transactions

and it is more likely the person will be caught, it is still possible to get away with stealing food

stamps. In February of 2016, Mike Cox, Attorney General of Michigan, announced that 27

individuals had charges brought against them for trafficking food stamps; their trafficking totaled

more than 1.5 million dollars (“Michigan Busts…” par. 1). Along with the individuals in

Michigan, many others are doing the same thing. An Oregon couple was arrested in early 2016

for trafficking food stamps and filling out false information on their food stamps applications

(“Three Face Charges for Food Stamp Fraud” par. 1). Douglas County Sheriff Deputies
7 quotes
6 paraphrases

questioned one of the perpetrators, Edward David St. John, on the situation, and “he told

deputies that he would use the card to buy items for himself and would buy the defendant

cigarettes in exchange for using the card” (qtd. in “Three Face Charges for Food Stamp Fraud”

par. 5). Both of these men faced criminal charges and spent time in jail. Although the

punishments are not extreme, they still leave marks on someone’s record and those never leave a

person.

One of the ways people committed fraud was by exchanging food stamps for cash. Why

would anyone want cash over free groceries? The simple answer is that they do not want the

government to have any control over what they can or cannot have. The food stamp program has

been attempting to put restrictions on the kinds of food recipients can purchase; some people do

not believe the government should be able to do this. People should be able to purchase whatever

they want, even if they have assistance from the government. In a debate on whether the

government should restrict foods from recipients, Executive Director of the Congressional

Hunger Center, Ed Cooney, defended the right to buy whatever the beneficiary wants, saying,

“Low-income families purchase the same types of foods at the grocery store as everyone else.

Higher-income families can afford more of the healthiest foods, like fruits and vegetables, whole

grains, and low-fat meat and dairy products” (Cooney and Rubio par. 3). Cooney supports the

idea that low-income families, the ones who benefit from food stamps, do not buy junk food

because they want to but because they likely cannot afford other types of food. Cooney also

questions the plan on determining approved foods, saying, “Every year, 12,000 new products hit

supermarket shelves. Whose job would it be to decide which ones are ‘good’ and which are

‘bad’” (qtd. in “Should People…” par. 2). No matter how much they kept up with the list of
7 quotes
6 paraphrases

approved foods, there would always be new foods getting released. How would the government

manage to keep that list up to date? There is no way to control what everyone buys with their

own cards, no matter how much people try.

Even though users argue to be able to buy appealing items, they should still be mindful to

understand that those are not always the healthiest options. Since the beginning of the program,

the government has been pushing to increase healthy choices, ultimately for a healthier country.

By putting limits on what purchases the program supports, the government can ensure a healthier

selection. “The Food Stamp Act, signed by President Lyndon B Johnson in 1964, was intended to

provide a ‘nutritionally adequate diet’ to Americans who couldn’t afford to buy healthy food

themselves” (Should People…” par. 6). At the beginning of the program, the main focus was to

provide low-income families with access to healthier food. That is no longer the case since it

started users have used the program to purchase unhealthy junk food. In 2011, California state

senator Michael Rubio attempted to pass a bill that limits the food selection available to buy with

their benefits, no longer able to purchase sugary drinks, candies, pre-prepared desserts, and other

unhealthy foods (“Should People…” par. 1). Although the program has put limits on available

items, for example, people can no longer purchase alcoholic beverages, vitamins, medicine, fast

food, and other hot meals. People are still able to buy chips, cupcakes, soda, candy, and other

sugary junk foods. More restrictions need to be placed in order to obtain a healthier country like

President Johnson intended.

Most taxpayers of the United States do not want their money paying for other people’s

food expenses, on top of what they need for themselves, but still, the amount of money spent on

food stamps is increasing. If the total cost happened to be causing the government to lose money,
7 quotes
6 paraphrases

they would consider making cuts to other areas. Andrew Taylor, author of “Trump’s Budget

Proposals Will Include Deep Cuts to Food Stamp Programs,” brings light to the cuts President

Trump’s budget planned to make. In his 2018 budget, 1.6 billion dollars was to be spent on the

wall construction, 300 million dollars on border patrol, and paid time off for mothers (“Taylor

par. 20). The budget took money from areas that needed it and spent it on food stamps. The

government is full of programs that have less funding than what SNAP receives. If the price had

been too high, to begin with, they would have never spent more money on it. According to the

article “Policy Basis: The Supplement Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),” in 2018 the cost

of the program was 68 billion dollars (par. 10). The government had a 4.4 trillion dollar budget

that year, with that budget, 68 billion will not make a large dent in the economy; they would still

have roughly 4.3 trillion dollars remaining. With that remaining money the government is able to

spend it on whatever they feel is best.

On the other hand, some will still argue that the program receives enough money, and

cuts should be made to the program. In the article “Prudence or Cruelty?” author Nicholas

Kristof states, “The Senate Democratic version of the farm bill would cut food stamps by 4

billion dollars over 10 years, while the House Republicans version would slash them by $40

billion” (172). Even after a cut this large, the program would still have billions of dollars

remaining in their budget. It is no secret that President Donald Trump has been pushing for

budget cuts on programs since he got voted into office in 2016. In his 2018 budget plan, there

were significant cuts to many federal programs, including Food Stamps. In the cuts made to

SNAPs, it showed that over the next decade, $193 million would be cut (par. 2-4). These cuts
7 quotes
6 paraphrases

would not affect the program as much as it seems, and if the qualifications to be able to receive

food stamps was lowered, there would be less people benefitting from the program.

No matter who is discussing the program, it is impossible to deny that Food Stamps are a

helpful resource to the United States, but the requirements to receive the benefits needs an

update. It has become too easy to pass the benefits between recipients, the types of foods

available are unhealthy, and the cost of the program is quite large. It no longer is a way for the

government to try and get a healthier country, now it is a system that gets abused and used

dishonestly. It is no longer a simple way to get “free money” from the government, but it is also

not free from any loopholes. In the last fifty-six years, the program has changed quite a bit and

there is no doubt that in the next fifty-six years, it will continue to change.
7 quotes
6 paraphrases

Works Cited

COONEY, ED, and MICHAEL J. RUBIO. “Should People Be Able to Buy Junk Food With

Food Stamps?” Junior Scholastic, vol. 113, no. 13, Apr. 2011, p. 11. EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=59693237&site=ehost-live&

scope=site.

“Food Assistance: Reducing the Trafficking of Food Stamp Benefits: T-RCED-00-250.” GAO

Reports, July 2000, p. 1. EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=18208734&site=ehost-live&

scope=site.

Kristof, Nicholas. "Prudence or Cruelty." Acting Out Culture: Readings for Critical Inquiry, by

James S. Miller, 3rd ed., Bedford/St. Martin's, 2015, pp. 172-74.

“Michigan busts $1.5 million food-stamp-for-cash ring.” Policy & Practice, vol. 66, no. 1, Mar.

2008, p. 26. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints,

https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A179082282/OVIC?u=chil38234&xid=bc20fd2f.

Accessed 30 Nov. 2020.

“Policy Basics: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).” Center on Budget

and Policy Priorities, 25 June 2019,

www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/policy-basics-the-supplemental-nutrition-assistan

ce-program-snap.

Taylor, Andrew. “Trump’s Budget Proposals Will Include Deep Cuts to Food Stamp Programs.”

Time.Com, May 2017, p. 1. EBSCOhost,

7 quotes
6 paraphrases

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=123228628&site=ehost-live

&scope=site.

“Three Face Charges for Food Stamp Fraud.” Telegram, The (Superior, WI), 1 Jan. 2016.

EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nfh&AN=2W62996797049&site=ehos

t-live&scope=site.